Topic: The Lightning Network FAQ - page 4. (Read 33287 times)

Yeap we are more than one, although only one writes here.
Language barrier

Litecoin being Bitoins little brother or so I understand it, is therefore unrelated.  Or any other service which is faster and more cost convenient can not be mentioned because it gets off topic?

That means you can only say lightning network is too tedious to be handled not giving an indication which service is faster and more commonly used by normies like me?

Oh?  You are a "we"?

This thread is still about bitcoin and bitcoin-related products.... and that is where lightning network fits, but Litecoin does not fit, whether you (or yous) consider it a shitcoin or not, it is not on topic...  so I otherwise stand by my earlier comments.

we don't deal in shitcoins. For me the decentralised, no CEO coins, are the ones which are most faithful to their whitepaper. The whitepaper being the most convincing argument. We try to maintain long term relationships. Not the tactic "There's an idiot born every day."

It does not sound like a very good idea to be misleading merchants into shitcoins, unless maybe you are saying that bitcoin is the superior technology, but that you just want to be able to dump your shitcoin with them - because hopefully you are not suggesting that they hold your shitcoin...

Another thing is that surely bitcoin is the more important innovation - even though surely there seem to be some user-interface issues with lightning network - even though there are a few lightning network wallets that merchants could easily download. and maybe there are custodial ones such as cash app or wallet of satoshi.. but then there is phoenix and breez also.. even though there may be more difficulties for them to move into some other area if they have phoenix and/or breez and then they might want to transfer to a bitcoin wallet and then have to learn about that later-- or perhaps merchants who are not very well informed are going to want to know that they are going to be able to convert to cash, if they need to (or want to).

We do seem to be getting off topic to talk too much about any particular shitcoins, anyhow, rather than perhaps making some comparisons in terms of discussing possible ways to make the lighting options easier to use.. while at the same time many of us might realize that there are some preferences to figure out how to interface lighting network wallets with onchain wallets - unless maybe we realize that the lightning balances can also be sent to exchanges - sure not completely lightning only, but I would think that any newbie (it was the case when I started) wants to know that they have various ways to exit, if they want or need to.

That is why I try to make them take the coin. Sometimes it works.

It's largely a question of adoption.  If you can find a merchant or retailer willing to accept Litecoin, then that option definitely doesn't have as steep a learning curve.  If you've never tried it before, then Lightning likely needs a bit more understanding and learning before you dive in.  Some custodial services make the process easier, but then it somewhat defeats the purpose of using Bitcoin to begin with.  Arguably it's acceptable for smaller sums, though.  But if you are going down the 'do-it-yourself' route, ensure you know what you're doing before you try to send any payments.

I wonder what advantages I would have using the Lightning Network vs Litecoin?
I would need a different wallet fiddle thru some setting?
Honestly you need to be BTC Maxxi if not, It does not sound feasible to use it.

a few days ago the rc1 was released and now follows cln 23.08 release candidate 2, with several bugfixes and including more documentation!

https://community.corelightning.org/c/general-questions/cln-version-23-08rc2-tagged

Just switched from LND to CLN. So far so good. Thanks for the update.

core lightning v23.08 release candidate 1 has now been announced and it is now time to test new and experimental features before release, such as these:

• taproot address support for core lightning
• introduction of renepay
• splice funds in or out of a live channel

https://community.corelightning.org/c/general-questions/version-23-08-release-candidate-1-tagged
 

Do they really rebalance the channels to their customers? I think they don’t. They just open new channels every time they try to route something to a customer but have no outbound liquidity in the existing channels to that customer. And they get fees for opening each new channel. This is one of the main sources of their income.

Not sure about Blixt and Muun, but to the best of my knowledge, Phoenix is (still) completely self-custodial. So while you do only have a channel with their node, making it a 'hub' of sorts, it is different to custodial wallets, where you don't even run your own node with your own channel(s) at all, but just have a balance on someone else's node.
This highly facilitates the job of the 'hub' provider to make sure every user has plenty of inbound and outbound capacity.

Picture this: in a Phoenix (also Breez) scenario, providers have to rebalance the channel that connects users to their hub, for every single user, if needed.
In a custodial scenario, they have to do that once for all users. Because it's 'just' one big node to manage, with liquidity going in and out. And transfers between users can be made without even touching Lightning. L3, if you wish.

I see. But Blixt, Phoenix and Muun also have such default hubs for all their users. Nevertheless, routing is much worse for these wallets (comparing with LNBits, for example).

They did, as I also mentioned in the same post, which wasn't included in your quote.

Quite obvious. Large lightning nodes which are the default hubs for custodial wallets have respectable part of the network's funds. Wallet of Satoshi is a good example of a custodial wallet with large capacity; they have 200 BTC, in more than two thousand channels. That's like 4% of the total bitcoins of the network's capacity.

When it did exist, yes, but isn't BlueWallet's hub shut down?

Nevermind.

Using Lightning through BlueWallet does not have "remarkably low fees". It was known that it had hidden fees for each LN transaction that would sometimes cost the user high fees than the average, depending on demand and transaction size.


Uninstall the "game"? You mean BlueWallet? They already removed support for LN two months ago, that's why OP must remove it in his list and add another wallet like Mutiny.

I almost cannot send anything from Blixt for two months already. It cannot find any route even a couple of sats. I tried to send to LNP2PBOT, to LNBITS, to CoinOS. Only one transfer out of five runs.

Actually, the same case is with Phoenix, and with Muun as well.

Simoultaneously, custodial wallets have no problems with routing.

In my venture to explore the Lightning Network (LN), I opted for the seamless experience provided by BlueWallet. The transactions conducted were solely in BTC, amounting to a mere USD $0.1. The swiftness of these transactions was remarkable, accompanied by remarkably low fees. However, I find myself more inclined towards Bitcoin (segwit) due to familiarity.

For LN, it may be suitable for facilitating sales and purchases at various stores while also introducing the original Bitcoin, highlighting how it is perceived, what is observed, and so forth. As of now, there are no plans to uninstall the game here.

OP, probably good to remove BlueWallet and add Mutiny.


I haven't looked closely at all the details on how it actually works but a "self-custodial wallet that runs on the web" means you store your keys in your browser? Probably not a good idea for big amount of Bitcoin. Haha.

Although trade-offs taken by their developers does make it easier for new users and does help solve the onboarding problem.

You are correct it's a custodial bitcoin ln wallet gaining popularity in latam. Not available in U.S due to Blink not operating (having a legal company set up in the U.S) regulation is not clear for them to want to hop in plus its costly and there are recent U.S companies shutting down like https://unbanked.com/unbanked-will-be-winding-down/ , so it appears the U.S might be losing some ground here.